Official WHS Survey

[clubchamp98]

But it's not, it's too short a period to possibly have your handicap rise by 5 shots, it's an absolute joke

We all have periods where the barn door is an impossible target, and your low index is a far better attestation of your ability, especially under the 8 of 20 scoring.

The rate of rising and the percentage allowance for playing handicap* both needs adjusted

*Really PH shouldn't exist, if the formula worked properly the CH would be the PH, the need for a percentage cut to "play" is a tacit admission that the sums are all wrong in the first place

This is spot on and imo what is the main problem .

In the past we all had bad spells and good spells.

You either just rode it out or you got on the practice ground and sorted your game out.

Now under WHS you don’t need to do that because the system will give you a few shots back instead.
It’s made golfers lazy and not want to improve.

But when you have the extra shots and your game comes back that’s where the silly scores are coming from.
It’s a mess and something needs to be done.

 

[woofers]

But it's not, it's too short a period to possibly have your handicap rise by 5 shots, it's an absolute joke

We all have periods where the barn door is an impossible target, and your low index is a far better attestation of your ability, especially under the 8 of 20 scoring.

The rate of rising and the percentage allowance for playing handicap* both needs adjusted

*Really PH shouldn't exist, if the formula worked properly the CH would be the PH, the need for a percentage cut to "play" is a tacit admission that the sums are all wrong in the first place

Over what period do you think, or know, handicaps are rising by 5 shots? No one at my club has had this 'misfortune' or 'help'.
My post does elude to a restriction on the number of GP rounds allowed in a period (a week?), so I still maintain that 8 from 20 is reasonable, particularly when those are mostly competition scores.
Any manipulation is likely to be done by those using the EG App.

 

[IanM]

I'm not sure if the step from CH to PH is an admission of anything. But additional process steps are rarely a good thing.

Similarly, removing a control has never made something more secure.

So the handicap system has issues, but it's not all bad. A whs handicap is not the same measure as it's predecessor

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Over what period do you think, or know, handicaps are rising by 5 shots? No one at my club has had this 'misfortune' or 'help'.
My post does elude to a restriction on the number of GP rounds allowed in a period (a week?), so I still maintain that 8 from 20 is reasonable, particularly when those are mostly competition scores.
Any manipulation is likely to be done by those using the EG App.

5 is the hard cap

In 2022 I went from 4 to 8 to 4. An absolute joke, I'd just lost my putting and needed to work on it, underlying I was still a 4 or a 5 and so it proved. To be given 8 shots for a while after so few cards was a joke

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Over what period do you think, or know, handicaps are rising by 5 shots? No one at my club has had this 'misfortune' or 'help'.
My post does elude to a restriction on the number of GP rounds allowed in a period (a week?), so I still maintain that 8 from 20 is reasonable, particularly when those are mostly competition scores.
Any manipulation is likely to be done by those using the EG App.

The last 20 scores window is a major departure from the previous system. The idea that your handicap should be form based rather than proven previous ability is at the heart of the argument for me. If you believe it should be form based, and I don't, then it surely can do better than a simple mean average from 8, regardless of consistency (range of scores). To be fair it must take into account the range of scores and shift the HI towards the lower potential of the player. If you look at a typical 4 handicapper, in this system, he'll have a much narrower range than that of a 24 handicapper. That crude calculation means in a field of 40, split evenly with 20 4 handicappers and 20 24 handicappers, the odds are very strong that a high handicapper will win, and win by a considerable margin from the best result from the 4 handicappers.

Yes, an extreme example but I hope it explains what I think is wrong with the current overly simplified calculation.

 

[wjemather]

I'm not sure if the step from CH to PH is an admission of anything. But additional process steps are rarely a good thing.

Similarly, removing a control has never made something more secure.

So the handicap system has issues, but it's not all bad. A whs handicap is not the same measure as it's predecessor

Indeed.

From RoH Appendix C:


From GB&I guidance:

 

[wjemather]

The last 20 scores window is a major departure from the previous system. The idea that your handicap should be form based rather than proven previous ability is at the heart of the argument for me. If you believe it should be form based, and I don't, then it surely can do better than a simple mean average from 8, regardless of consistency (range of scores). To be fair it must take into account the range of scores and shift the HI towards the lower potential of the player. If you look at a typical 4 handicapper, in this system, he'll have a much narrower range than that of a 24 handicapper. That crude calculation means in a field of 40, split evenly with 20 4 handicappers and 20 24 handicappers, the odds are very strong that a high handicapper will win, and win by a considerable margin from the best result from the 4 handicappers.

Yes, an extreme example but I hope it explains what I think is wrong with the current overly simplified calculation.

Your conclusion appears to be based on incorrect assumptions about the likelihood of great scores from the higher (barely above average) handicappers. This might help; although it relates to the old USGA system rather than WHS, the numbers are not too dissimilar (& remember 95% is also in effect).

(Ignoring GB&I mandates) WHS recommends a higher than 95% allowance in such a field in order to give the higher handicappers a fair chance.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Your conclusion appears to be based on incorrect assumptions about the likelihood of great scores from the higher (barely above average) handicappers. This might help; although it relates to the old USGA system rather than WHS, the numbers are not too dissimilar (& remember 95% is also in effect).

(Ignoring GB&I mandates) WHS recommends a higher than 95% allowance in such a field in order to give the higher handicappers a fair chance.

View attachment 55254

The allowances are a sticking plasters imo. They are based on the assumption that all players of the same handicap have a similar range of scores. There is an old chap at my club who hits every green in one more than par and two putts consistently. He was a great player and still is but his consistent 18 handicap leaves him well adrift in the competitions.

It would be an improvement to base each individual's allowance on standard deviation. Better still, base the HI calculation on SD and do away with allowances.

However all of that is just a more complicated sticking plaster. I still think the previous system was hard the beat. Add in a decent match and handicap convenor and everyone was happy, at least everyone I knew.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Your conclusion appears to be based on incorrect assumptions about the likelihood of great scores from the higher (barely above average) handicappers. This might help; although it relates to the old USGA system rather than WHS, the numbers are not too dissimilar (& remember 95% is also in effect).

(Ignoring GB&I mandates) WHS recommends a higher than 95% allowance in such a field in order to give the higher handicappers a fair chance.

View attachment 55254

I see, so what you're regurgitating is yet more erroneous assumptions from the organisation that has already railroaded the R&A into this awful system

That's what they recommend, but evidence says they are wrong, that's the difference. Under WHS higher handicaps don't need even more help, they already have more than they need, and the United states, where club medals are a rarity, is not the country that should be making these decisions

 

[wjemather]

The allowances are a sticking plasters imo. They are based on the assumption that all players of the same handicap have a similar range of scores. There is an old chap at my club who hits every green in one more than par and two putts consistently. He was a great player and still is but his consistent 18 handicap leaves him well adrift in the competitions.

It would be an improvement to base each individual's allowance on standard deviation. Better still, base the HI calculation on SD and do away with allowances.

They are based on massive amounts of data, not assumptions. Anecdotes about individual outliers are not useful when discussing a system that caters for millions of golfers.

Allowances are based on standard deviations; having a sliding scale of allowances through the handicap range would achieve little more than making it more complicated and harder to comprehend - one stroke difference here and there makes little difference to the overall result, and certainly wouldn't stop the wailing about great scores from higher handicappers. HI is based on SDs.

However all of that is just a more complicated sticking plaster. I still think the previous system was hard the beat. Add in a decent match and handicap convenor and everyone was happy, at least everyone I knew.

The old system only worked for low handicappers. WHS has revived the interest (both in the game and competitively) of many golfers that had been lost largely due to the failings of the old system.

 

[rulefan]

In 2022 I went from 4 to 8 to 4. An absolute joke, I'd just lost my putting and needed to work on it, underlying I was still a 4 or a 5 and so it proved. To be given 8 shots for a while after so few cards was a joke

As my age goes up and infirmity gets worse, my ability goes down; primarily but not exclusively because the distance I can hit a ball goes down.
The UHS simply couldn't keep pace.
WHS allows my inability to be recognised more rapidly and accurately.
I know many older players, once some have overcome their 'vanity', have welcomed the extra strokes. Certainly, having just retired from the handicap committee, I experienced only a couple of complaints since WHS was introduced.
Incidentally, my club has always run a tight ship re general play scores. But I do recognise this is a major problem elsewhere and seemingly the EG app (which we don't use) is a major contributor.

 

[wjemather]

I see, so what you're regurgitating is yet more erroneous assumptions from the organisation that has already railroaded the R&A into this awful system

That's what they recommend, but evidence says they are wrong, that's the difference. Under WHS higher handicaps don't need even more help, they already have more than they need, and the United states, where club medals are a rarity, is not the country that should be making these decisions

It's inaccurate to say that conclusions based on detailed statistical analysis of massive amounts of real world data are "assumptions".

The evidence demonstrates that WHS is far more equitable the UHS was - even your own club's competition results show this to be the case.

 

[Backache]

The old system only worked for low handicappers. WHS has revived the interest (both in the game and competitively) of many golfers that had been lost largely due to the failings of the old system.

I would suggest that Covid has revived interest in the game rather than the WHS. The revival existed in countries that already had similar systems and predated the implementation of the WHS which was delayed because of Covid.
Interest in competitions at our club has notably declined since the introduction of the cheaters charter.

 

[rulefan]

Interest in competitions at our club has notably declined since the introduction of the cheaters charter.

Do you not have an effective handicap committee?
What software do you use?

 

[Backache]

Do you not have an effective handicap committee?

I have no criticism of the commitee, busy people doing their best to implement a flawed system.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I see, so what you're regurgitating is yet more erroneous assumptions from the organisation that has already railroaded the R&A into this awful system

That's what they recommend, but evidence says they are wrong, that's the difference. Under WHS higher handicaps don't need even more help, they already have more than they need, and the United states, where club medals are a rarity, is not the country that should be making these decisions

Yes. Evidence and common sense.

I would expect, statistically, that if 20 players are playing then there's a very very good chance that 1 of those 20 will repeat their best score in their last 20 outings, higher handicap or not. Playing as well as your best in the previous 20 is roughly a 1/20 chance. After all that score is not even guaranteed to be their best ever score if the sample is only last 20.

My point is that that best score is likely to be significantly lower than the average used to calculate HI. That differential is a sliding scale based on consistency. Consistent players are generally lower handicappers but not exclusively.

To suggest that higher handicappers, who are more likely to be inconsistent, need even more help in the current WHS needs scrutiny to say the least.

 

[woofers]

But I do recognise this is a major problem elsewhere and seemingly the EG app (which we don't use) is a major contributor.

Interesting, how do you restrict the use of the EG App? By disabling the tee markers in the EG WHS platform?
Presumably you don’t allow General Play scores from your ISV either?
How do members submit General Play scores? By registering manually and submitting the physical scorecard?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

They are based on massive amounts of data, not assumptions. Anecdotes about individual outliers are not useful when discussing a system that caters for millions of golfers.

Allowances are based on standard deviations; having a sliding scale of allowances through the handicap range would achieve little more than making it more complicated and harder to comprehend - one stroke difference here and there makes little difference to the overall result, and certainly wouldn't stop the wailing about great scores from higher handicappers. HI is based on SDs.


The old system only worked for low handicappers. WHS has revived the interest (both in the game and competitively) of many golfers that had been lost largely due to the failings of the old system.

In summary, my gripe with WHS is that it tries too much to standardise each golfer based on handicap. Statistics will do that for you very well but, as we all know, the average human being has one breast and one testicle.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

I would suggest that Covid has revived interest in the game rather than the WHS. The revival existed in countries that already had similar systems and predated the implementation of the WHS which was delayed because of Covid.
Interest in competitions at our club has notably declined since the introduction of the cheaters charter.

There's no doubt that WHS has had a detrimental effect on competition at my club also. One or two low boys trying to hang tough but most are doing their own thing now while they hope this debacle will pass. Remember, the low boys have gotten even lower but they need to be that low to get into scratch competitions around Ireland. One plus handicapper shot 35 over for 36 holes recently in one of the 4 regional opens. A friend of mine couldn't get in off +1.3 and he's quality.

 

[D-S]

One of the issues is that Handicap Committees have now is a much more frequent task in ensuring the score submissions from visitors via the EG App are correct. Pre App the number of away supplementary scores was just about 0.
This week alone we have had to write to 3 other clubs advising them that their members played our course and either their attester of their member”s score played and did not pay a green fee or, more likely, was not present.
We duly mark them as matchplay and trust the clubs to act properly in educating their members but we have repeat offenders so this obviously is not working or not happening.
This is a typical week with iGolfers being the most frequent offenders - I don’t know the amount of iGolfers vs other clubs visiting so I cannot say if they are worse or there are just more of them.

This is a deal of work. We, as far as I am aware, have never had another club advising us of misdemeanours of our players in attestation of GP scores so either they are all perfect (extremely unlikely) or the clubs are simply not checking.

This is not necessary handicap manipulation but some of it may well be. The oversight required is in reality far too much for most clubs so this ‘misbehaviour’ will continue until more security or a change in protocol is introduced.